The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Visions of Alternative (Unpredictable) Futures and Their Use in Policy Analysis
Open accessAbstract
The most critical task facing humanity today is the creation of a shared vision of a sustainable and desirable society, one that can provide permanent prosperity within the biophysical constraints of the real world in a way that is fair and equitable to all of humanity, to other species, and to future generations. Recent work with businesses and communities indicates that creating a shared vision is the most effective engine for change in the desired direction, yet most effort in "futures modeling" has focused on extrapolating past trends rather than envisioning alternative futures. Science and economics as applied to policy are in conflict more often over alternative visions of the world than purely "scientific" disagreements. Likewise, governance has gotten bogged down in mediating short term conflicts between special interests rather than its more basic role of creating broadly shared visions that can guide dispute resolution. This paper addresses the question of what policies are most appropriate for society now, given alternative visions of the future and the enormous uncertainty about the reality of the assumptions underlying these visions. Four specific visions are laid out as being representative of the major alternatives. For each vision the benefits of achieving the vision, the assumptions that would have to be true in order for it to be achieved, and the implications of it being attempted but not achieved are explored. It is argued that dealing with uncertainty about the nature of the world, its carrying capacity for humans, the impacts of climate change, and other aspects of its future can best be done at this level of future visions and assumptions, not at more detailed levels (like the parameter uncertainty in models). Application of this vision/uncertainty analysis can help us both to design the future society we want and to maximize the chances of our getting there safely.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
How science makes environmental controversies worse
Sarewitz, D. (2004) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001 · Cited by 1,194
Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being
Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Ali, S., Beer, C., Bond, L., Boumans, R., Danigelis, N. L., Dickinson, J., Elliott, C., Farley, J., et al. (2007) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.023 · Cited by 1,038
Self-citationEvolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change
Wilson, D. S., Hayes, S. C., Biglan, A., & Embry, D. D. (2014) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x13001593 · Cited by 255
Boumans, R., Roman, J., Altman, I., & Kaufman, L. (2015) · Ecosystem Services · doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.004 · Cited by 259
An integrative approach to quality of life measurement, research, and policy
Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Ali, S., Beer, C., Bond, L., Boumans, R., Danigelis, N. L., Dickinson, J., Elliott, C., Farley, J., et al. (2008) · Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society · doi:10.5194/sapiens-1-11-2008 · Cited by 187
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Costanza, R.
- Venue
- Conservation Ecology
- Publisher
- Resilience Alliance, Inc.
- Published
- 2000
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 1195-5449 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2107082646
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Visions of Alternative (Unpredictable) Futures and Their Use in Policy Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5751/es-00171-040105
- The paper
- Costanza, R. (2000). Visions of Alternative (Unpredictable) Futures and Their Use in Policy Analysis. Conservation Ecology. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-00171-040105
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.